Who’s liable when a self-driving car self-crashes?

Share This article

Can self-driving cars exchange insurance information when they’re in an accident? And who pays? Relax, near-term and in the future. You’re in good hands. As long as most self-driving test cars are from Google, drivers don’t have to worry that the other guy is under-insured. Liability will be a modest concern over the next 5-20 years when autonomous driving vehicles go on sale. Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn at this year’s Detroit auto show predicted the first driverless cars would arrive by 2020.

Most likely the who’s-responsible, who-pays issues will be ironed out well in advance. State motor vehicle departments are drawing regulations now, and industry groups such as automakers are offering helpful advice on who should, and more importantly should not, be responsible. (“Anybody but us.”)

A handful of states have authorized autonomous driving vehicles, starting with California and radiating out to the southeast to Nevada and Arizona — states with lots of less-traveled roads and little snow. Those are the ones working hardest to draw up regulations because they want the automakers’ test fleet business.

“A crash more confusing than Google+”

To date, all or almost all the accidents involving self-driving cars has come from being rear-ended by another manually driven car, or the autonomous vehicle test driver hitting something while he or she was manually driving the car. A 2010 incident involved multiple cars happened more or less like this: A manually driven, Google-owned autonomous-capable Toyota Prius hit a Honda Accord, which hit another Honda Accord, which hit a second non-Google Prius, as was detailed by Jalopnik and later described by NBC News as “a chain reaction more confusing than Google+.” As you might guess by the Prius-Accord-Accord-Prius vehicular mix, this didn’t take place in Michigan but in Silicon Valley near Google HQ.

Self-driving Audis have driven — actually, raced — up guardrail-free Pikes Peak multiple times without incident, other than a crash by a helicopter filming one of the runs (minor injuries to four on-board, no fatalities). Another Google autonomous vehicle was hit from behind by a civilian vehicle at low speed. That’s about it.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

Joel Detrow

Well said – you’ve addressed my exact thoughts on the issues people have raised. As for who’s to blame if one crashes, I think a simple view of black box data would solve the issue as to whether or not it was the fault of the driver (poor maintenance, use of manual control, or modifications), the State (poorly maintained roads), or the manufacturer (software glitch, a faulty part, etc.), and set liabilities accordingly.

Insurers are actually likely to provide discounts to users with vehicles that have self- or augmented-driving capabilities, and naturally if the accident isn’t the driver’s fault, the insurance company will pay for repairs while sending lawyers after the party that IS responsible.

SAL_e

But at the end, the drivers will pay. The more convoluted the system the higher the price would be.

Example. Let say it is software bug that resulted in crash. Insurance company will sue the car manufacture. This will increase the cost to manufacture the car. As result the car will cost more and you going to pay, no matter who is made liable by the law.

In fact the more we are trying to past the cost to somebody else the higher premium we are going to pay. If we pass $100 as liability to the car manufacture, when the bill comes back to us will be $100 + lawyer fees (about 50%) + $30 (about desired gross profit).

We should stop trying to past the cost/liability to somebody else and just except the price for convenience and pay the insurance cost to cover any liability.

And Big Brother doesn’t need/have access to the on-board computer.

Joel Detrow

You miss the point of proper liabilities – if the manufacturer is responsible for software glitches and faulty hardware, they will test their prototypes and first batches rigorously before releasing them. If an insurance company offers its customers discounts for owning certain makes and models, it will have had the diligence to research which cars are safest. If the government doesn’t want to lose money to a lawsuit, they will maintain the roads properly. Yes, all this will be more expensive, but cars that can completely drive themselves are obviously going to be a luxury item anyway. We can’t expect a $10,000 self-driving car until 2040 or later.

And no one said anything about Big Brother. Take off your tin foil hat.

SAL_e

Myth vs. Reality

Myth #1. If the liabilities are past to manufacture they will test better and make sure their car are perfect as possible.

Reality #1. They, car manufactures, will just buy insurance policy and past the cost to you.

Myth #2. Insurance company will do some kind of ‘homework’ to determent “safer” cars.

Reality #2. All those test by insurance companies are PR campaigns to pressure car manufactures to adopt their ‘standards’. The actual premiums are calculated based on claims they have paid in the past.

Myth #3. Government will build better/safer roads to avoid lawsuits.

Reality #3 Government will only raise you taxes in order to improve the roads, and that’s only if they don’t spend the new money on something else.

You are thinking and trying to apply ‘carrot vs stick’ motivation approach. This method has been proven to be very false when it is applied to complex systems. It work only in very simplistic/mechanical tasks.

Joel Detrow

The failure of incentives to improve performance in any but the most remedial tasks only applies to individuals. We’re talking about very large organizations with every responsibility delegated to a party of individuals. These organizations have lawyers who will tell them the legality of the situation, and they have analysts who will make cost-benefit analyses and weigh how many cars will be made against what the typical expected settlement will be for an accident (likely no more than several times the cost of the repairs) and tell management the ideal amount to spend on refining the vehicle’s safety and stability in order to maximize profit. This is something every manufacturer already does.

Self-driving cars will be substantially more expensive than non-self-driving cars, because of the increased complexity of producing them; there’s no sense arguing that liabilities one way or the other will increase cost when the important thing is that the agreed-upon liabilities are FAIR.

If I’m driving sleepy and sideswipe or rear-end someone, I am liable for that. If the steering wheel pops off while I’m driving, the manufacturer is liable for that. If the road has a massive pothole that wrecks my suspension or sends my car into a tree, the State is liable for that. If a sinkhole opens up in the road, it’s no one’s fault. In these four examples, the insurance will pay whatever they have agreed to pay; the only difference is in who they have the right to legally pursue to recoup their loss in the case.

SAL_e

“If the steering wheel pops off while I’m driving, the manufacturer is liable for that.”

This is not true in most cases. the manufacturer is only liable if they knew about the defect and didn’t take actions to correct it.

Ok. What is “FAIR”? I will give you an example and you tell me who is liable.

You want car that will get you from home to work and you want to drink your coffee and to read your news paper during the morning commute.

If you buy manually operated car and you rear-end someone you agree it is your liability.

If you buy self-driving car and you rear-end someone you believe its somehow manufacturer’s fault. Why?!

You want to drink your coffee during your morning commute. Because of your desire you buy a self-driving car that is driven buy computer and you know that there is no perfect computer program. You know that any system can fail, but you still elect to do it any way. Manufacture’s liability is to fix known problems or replace the car if it can’t be fixed. But the crash is your liability no matter what. This crash will not happen if you decide to take a bus.

some_guy_said

“We can’t expect a $10,000 self-driving car until 2040 or later.”

We can never expect a $10,000 self driving car. You can’t even get a $10,000 (new) car at all in the US (The nissan versa is 10,990)

30 years of inflation, and the cheapest car will be $30,000.

Andrew Hoye

We already in Australia pay an insurance premium in our registration so I would assume that we will continue to pay but it may be reduced due to the fact that there could be so less accidents on the roads

some_guy_said

You’re mostly wrong. Since autodrive so far has drastically lower crash rates (Not to mention unreported parking lot dings and minor fender benders) than the average driver, you would see lower rates for the majority of people with self driving cars.

While you are probably correct about some of the pressures that will increase cost, the overall reduced number of accidents and amount of associated litigation will far outweigh the litigation from a few questionable accidents.

And Big Brother would have access to your black box, because it is the scene of an accident. The PoPo’s certainly have authority to pull it out. It’s an accident/possible crime scene (Some driving infractions, such as DD are criminal misdemeanor or even felony acts. In VA, every accident is a misdemeanor offense).

If you refuse to provide the box to your insurance, then it’s almost a tacit admission of guilt. If the other side’s story or black box makes a decent amount of sense, then that is reasonable enough proof that you are liable and not being fully truthful.

SAL_e

I guess you didn’t understand my argument at all. I don’t argue if our rates will go up or down if we operate self-driving car or not, but the fact that our rates will be more expensive if we try to pass the liability to 3rd party. My position is that driver/operator of the car should pay for insurance, especially as you pointed the number of accidents/crashes will go down with self-driving cars.

Every driver, who chooses to operate a car, increases the risk to other people and he/she is responsible to carry appropriate insurance or face the consequences if he/she refuses the insurance.

“If you refuse to provide the box to your insurance, then it’s almost a tacit admission of guilt”

This is very troubling statement. Last time I checked you are innocent until proven guilty in USA. Why you are so eager to surrender your freedom for questionable security?! If you want to continue to argue otherwise I will propose, that your wear tracking bracelet, so you have prove that you didn’t do it, what ever overzealous cop chooses to accuse you.

Yes, there are cases when investigation will need access to the blackbox, but it should be done after the government shows probable cause and gets court order. This order should limit the scope of the data provided to the investigators. Just because we have new technology, we should not allow suspension of our freedom and responsibility. OK.

some_guy_said

I did understand your argument. My argument is the positive factors that make this cheaper will likely outweigh any increases in cost associated with litigation from liability transfer.

“”If you refuse to provide the box to your insurance, then it’s almost a tacit admission of guilt”

This is very troubling statement. Last time I checked you are innocent until proven guilty in USA.”

You lack an understanding of civil law. I applied this example only to insurance, which is a civil legal matter. This does not fall under constitutional criminal protections – as the insurance issue is not a criminal issue. The burden of proof is much lower (OJ simpson won in criminal court, but lost in civil court for example).

When you have a situation where one party has to have liability/guilt, if one person is forthcoming and reasonable (As stated, the other side still has to make a sensible case), and the other person refuses to provide substantial proof of what happened – when this proof is known to be available, they start at a reasonable disadvantage. Simply, if it is my word against yours, plus I have hard recorded data to back me up – I WILL win civil matters 99 out of 100 times.

Furthermore, if the car company does assume any liability whatsoever, you can bet that you will be contractually obligated to remove the black box for any liability questions.

SAL_e

If I am you, I will not use OJ Simpsons’ cases as example, except as complete failure of both Criminal and Civil Law in USA.

some_guy_said

It’s a valid structural example of my point, even if it independently shows other failings of the system.

Brendan McWilliams

I am the biggest anti-government infringement on privacy and such, but this is a clear cut case. You are not required to own a self driving car. If you choose the convenience, they may have tracking information on you. If you choose to have a cell phone, they can track you. If you choose to have a credit/debit card, they can track you.

The only time I see this as an overstepping of government/corporations on my privacy and liberties is when they require me to own a self driving car. If it is voluntary, there is no conflict of interest here and I can always opt out and choose a manual car (or paying in cash, or not carrying a cell phone on my person, or not putting all my private information on facebook).

SAL_e

Just like you, I’m quite aware how much data is collected by new technologies that I use every day. And this data makes many of the devices we use today quite useful. So collecting data per say is not bad. What is bad what happens after the data is collected. I might agree that Google collects data to get me from point A to point B, but for sure I don’t agree this information to be used by the cops to search for unknown suspect. Because same data taken out of its context could look very bad. If the cops want the data they should have probable cause and should get a warrant. And in the case of Cellphone the Supreme Court Just affirmed this. You want to search cellphone … get a warrant.

One more thing. The government already is trying to pass a laws demanding black-boxes and kill-switches in ALL (not only self-driving) cars.

GatzLoc

Lol it’s so funny because since I drive without a license because I own the roads. And get no ‘botheration from the authorities’. (Y) :)

http://www.facebook.com/alexander.nevrmind.7 Alexander Nevrmind

Google would be responsible as the software will crash while its to busy tracking what you sre doing? LOL

Grish

In 20-30 years who knows. The goverment might own the technology, the cars and simply increase our federal taxes to offset any liability issues.

Personalized mass transit.

some_guy_said

When companies take self driving cars to primetime, they will take most liability for accidents while in ‘driverless’ mode. Except it will read like an insurance policy about when and when they won’t take liability, what you can and can’t do, screw you, and so on.

Why? Because otherwise there will be no adoption of the driverless cars if the first cars do not include liability.

After society adjusts to the new paradigm and becomes comfortable with the safety record, it will become part of your typical insurance, with a rate multiplier based on incidence of accidents of that car with autopilot system. It will be a mix of no-fault coverage and at fault coverage and laws, varying state by state. (Because you’re still expected to have control of the car)

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=711851042 Bill Tkach

I like what you say, and I agree. Why would I buy a self-driving car, if I have to sit there, and make sure it doesn’t make any mistakes? I don’t get to relax, because I’m responsible if something bad happens, if the system fails, or, if something breaks. I would hope that this system is designed more like the space shuttle, where you would have some sort of backup should the computer lock up… much like when my Xbox360 locked up last night while playing Skyrim, except in the self-driving car, a secondary computer should jump in if it notices something has gone into an infinite loop.
Also, in a self driving car, shouldn’t all the seats face backwards? Your less prone to whiplash in that case, plus you’ll be more relaxed when you slam into an oncoming minivan, because you won’t see it.

My Google Nexus 10 crashes about once a day during normal usage, and I simply put up with it, because it’s not a life-threatening issue. But if my Google operated car crashed once a day, I’d be dead 365 times a year.

Planes on auto-pilot can fly just fine, and boats on auto-cruise can sail just fine, because those are relatively controlled environments with not many variables to go wrong. But out on the public roads? You have snow, ice, hydro-planing, pot holes, deer, blown tires, children running out in front of you, inattentive pedestrians stepping off the curb in front of you, people with bikes strapped to the roof of their SUVs suddenly snapping off and having them fly right at you on the highway (this has happened to me once before), and worst of all, other bad drivers.

A machine can never predict uncertainty. Software can replace monotonous tasks, but it can never replace good judgement.

http://profile.yahoo.com/TMONKW6ES7IKPL5AOFBDXZV6O4 Dennis

Simple, unless the owner is proven to have done something wrong the car manufacturer is responsible. A self-driving car is an incredibly stupid idea invented by someone who thinks they are never responsible for anything. And probably bought by someone who thinks they are never responsible for anything. The idiots need to learn that someone is always responsible.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HK5TNSJGA5YONAE2SLI2SMKCBE JPR

Um… nobody is, because they *don’t get into accidents.*

Brendan McWilliams

These definitely will be safer in the long run, and even if there are the occasional glitch causing accidents, in the current “text messaging while driving” culture, these glitches far dwarf the myriad of accidents caused by “manual” drivers. Just being able to subtract out the possibility of drunk driving, driving under influence of drugs, driving under the influence of being elderly, driving under the influence of being an idiot (all you “texting while driving” twits), etc, etc, would likely remove around 90% of the accidents today. At this point, I would likely be eyeballing the states that adopt this first and relocating there, and so far, it is looking like Nevada and California leading this.

freedotz

These cars will never be able to take the a-hole driver factor into account… I can’t wait to see these things being run off the road every time a hot-foot in a sport’s car cuts them off

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.